Thaindian News

New Delhi, March 22 (IANS) The youth are prone to commit indiscretion and such minor acts should be condoned instead of branding them as criminals, the Supreme Court has said.

“After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretion made by young people rather than brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives,” the court said.

“The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal for the rest of his life,” said the apex court bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra in a recent order.

The court referred to a judgment of Lord Denning - a legend of British jurisprudence - in which he said: “They (Welsh students) have done wrong - very wrong - in going to the extreme they did. But, that having been shown, I think we can, and should, show mercy to them. We should permit them to go back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course which they have so wrongly disturbed.”

The judges said: “In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning.”

The court said this while dismissing an appeal by the Delhi Police commissioner challenging a Delhi High Court order by which it upheld the candidature of Sandeep Kumar for the post of head constable for which recruitment was held in 1999.

Police alleged that Sandeep Kumar, while applying for the post, concealed the information that he and his family members were involved in a criminal case with their tenant which was settled through a compromise in January 1998 and he was acquitted.

Sandeep Kumar cleared all the tests for the selection of the post of temporary head constable. In April 2001, he filed an attestation form in which he divulged the details of the criminal case against him and his subsequent acquittal.

In August 2001, he was issued a show cause notice by police asking him why his candidature should not be cancelled on the grounds of concealment of details of the criminal case in his application and making a wrong statement. Upon receiving his reply, Sandeep Kumar’s candidature was cancelled.

He challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which ruled against him. However, the high court set aside the order of CAT and quashed the cancellation of his candidature.

The apex court while upholding the order of high court said: “When the incident happened the respondent (Sandeep Kumar) must have been about 20 years of age. At that age, young people often commit indiscretion, and such indiscretion can often be condoned.”